Holy Trinity Discussion

[Orangeslice13]

​

Genesis 1:1​

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

John 1:1​

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

John 1:2​

“The same was in the beginning with God.”

John 1:3​

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

John 1:10​

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”

John 1:14​

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

​

I’ve addressed this multiple times in this thread alone.

Posting poorly translated vs without understanding or context doesn’t mean anything or even make a point.
The reality is that you have done no research and are applying an understanding that formed generations after the author to a text that had a completely different meaning for the first 300 years of it’s existence.

John appeals to Greek philosophy in his use of the word logos. Had he meant what you now claim his Greek word choice would have been completely different.
Even in your chosen scriptures the “logos” doesn’t become flesh until vs 14. Long after creation was complete.

Don’t get me started on the atrocities committed by Christians to the word “begotten”.

The pagan concept of trinity didn’t find it’s way into Christianity until the 3rd century.
You can keep your Dogma. Let’s face it there are 40,000 denominations. All are convinced they are the only ones who get it. None of them bother to study original word choice or intent. Very few who call themselves Christian are worried about truth.

 

[Orangeslice13]

A Literal Translation of the New Testament (E. Harwood 1768) “ "Before the origen of this world exifted the LOGOS - who was then with the supreme God - and was himfelf a divine perfon."

Archbishop Newcome’s New Testament, Improved Version 1809 "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god."

James Moffatt Translation 1913 “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."

An American Translation, (Goodspeed 1923) “ "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

James Moffatt Translation 1913 “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."

 

[bamawriter]

A Literal Translation of the New Testament (E. Harwood 1768) “ "Before the origen of this world exifted the LOGOS - who was then with the supreme God - and was himfelf a divine perfon."

I think you mean "A Liberal Translation of the New Testament." No one takes Harwood's translation seriously. He was trying to imitate 18th century English prose. He did so poorly. Just read his abomination of the Lord's Prayer.

Archbishop Newcome’s New Testament, Improved Version 1809 "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god."

The "Improved" Version of Newcome's New Testament was released by the Unitarian Thomas Belsham after Newcome had died. The above translation is not in Newcome's version. Thomas Belsham's version takes the liberty of removing several NT epistles and Revelation.

James Moffatt Translation 1913 “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."

Moffatt's translation does a nice job of using common language, but it's not considered to be a terribly good translation. For what it's worth, Moffatt was part of the group that produced the RSV, and it translates John 1:1 in the common phrasing.

An American Translation, (Goodspeed 1923) “ "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

I'm not familiar with this translation, so I can't say much. Goodspeed's introduction refers to Moffatt's translation, so that similarity makes sense. And again, Moffatt's wording of John 1:1 didn't carry thru to his work on the RSV.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I think you mean "A Liberal Translation of the New Testament." No one takes Harwood's translation seriously. He was trying to imitate 18th century English prose. He did so poorly. Just read his abomination of the Lord's Prayer.


The "Improved" Version of Newcome's New Testament was released by the Unitarian Thomas Belsham after Newcome had died. The above translation is not in Newcome's version. Thomas Belsham's version takes the liberty of removing several NT epistles and Revelation.

Moffatt's translation does a nice job of using common language, but it's not considered to be a terribly good translation. For what it's worth, Moffatt was part of the group that produced the RSV, and it translates John 1:1 in the common phrasing.

I'm not familiar with this translation, so I can't say much. Goodspeed's introduction refers to Moffatt's translation, so that similarity makes sense. And again, Moffatt's wording of John 1:1 didn't carry thru to his work on the RSV.

That’s a copy pasta from the Harvard divinity school.
You can take the individual details up with them. And they are later than the creed.

My point is there are many schools of thought on this that leave the Greek concept of “Trinity “ far from a certainty in a Jewish religion.

Now if you want to hear my individual thoughts on the verse as it would have been understood 2000 years ago I’d be happy to have that conversation. I’d actually enjoy it considering you tend to be well read as opposed to those who make the same arguments over and over.

Albeit not while I’m standing at a viewing at a funeral home. Better answers from me would be delayed till this evening.

 

[Orangeslice13]

@bamawriter
What’s your interpretation of John’s use of the Greek understanding of “Logos” 2000 years ago?

 

[bamawriter]

That’s a copy pasta from the Harvard divinity school.
You can take the individual details up with them. And they are later than the creed.

Harvard Divinity School got collectively bamboozled by the obvious fraud that was "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife." While I'm hardly and expert, I'm not sure that school is most effective source.

My point is there are many schools of thought on this that leave the Greek concept of “Trinity “ far from a certainty in a Jewish religion.

Now if you want to hear my individual thoughts on the verse as it would have been understood 2000 years ago I’d be happy to have that conversation. I’d actually enjoy it considering you tend to be well read as opposed to those who make the same arguments over and over.

Albeit not while I’m standing at a viewing at a funeral home. Better answers from me would be delayed till this evening.

Very sorry about the funeral. Totally understand any delayed responses.

 

[LouderVol]

Now read the rest.
Edit: here I’ll do it for you

15 God furthermore said to Moses, “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘YHWH the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is the [i]name for [j]all generations to use to call upon Me.

G-Ds name isn’t “ I am. “ that’s his status. In Verse 15 he tells you the name he shall be ……and has been known by…..for all generations.

YHWH, The G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I get that it’s devastating to your dogma but the Truth often is.

I have found the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" to be troubling considering the history of the region and shared cultures.

Its strange that the writings start with 'God' and only elaborate to the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" later.

Genesis tends to use "El" or "Elohim". later books in the Torah shift to usage of Yahweh alone.

typically the older the writing the more likely there is a distinction between El and Yahweh beyond generic name 'god' vs 'God'. so it seems like the hebrew versions of the Torah have undergone their own theological editing.

 

[bamawriter]

@bamawriter
What’s your interpretation of John’s use of the Greek understanding of “Logos” 2000 years ago?

I have absolutely no clue when it comes to ancient Greek. I'm dependent on those who actually know what they're talking about.

Here's my layman's take: while the Jewish authors were writing in Greek, it doesn't mean that the Jewish authors universally shared the usage and contexts of all Greek words. For example: Americans and Brits both used the term "chip," but what we call "chips" they call "crisps" and what they call "chips" we call "fries." Hugh Mackintosh has a summary of it that is way better than I could possibly craft. From the Jewish perspective, God spoke the world into existence. Thus God's "word" is a pretty powerful concept. This context of "logos" makes far more sense than Philo's usage.

 

[me_grag53]

I think you mean "A Liberal Translation of the New Testament." No one takes Harwood's translation seriously. He was trying to imitate 18th century English prose. He did so poorly. Just read his abomination of the Lord's Prayer.


The "Improved" Version of Newcome's New Testament was released by the Unitarian Thomas Belsham after Newcome had died. The above translation is not in Newcome's version. Thomas Belsham's version takes the liberty of removing several NT epistles and Revelation.

Moffatt's translation does a nice job of using common language, but it's not considered to be a terribly good translation. For what it's worth, Moffatt was part of the group that produced the RSV, and it translates John 1:1 in the common phrasing.

I'm not familiar with this translation, so I can't say much. Goodspeed's introduction refers to Moffatt's translation, so that similarity makes sense. And again, Moffatt's wording of John 1:1 didn't carry thru to his work on the RSV.

Thank you. Pretty much what i found. Here is something on Goodspeed.

Goodspeed and Smith, The Bible: An American Translation

 

[Orangeslice13]

I have found the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" to be troubling considering the history of the region and shared cultures.

Its strange that the writings start with 'God' and only elaborate to the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" later.

Genesis tends to use "El" or "Elohim". later books in the Torah shift to usage of Yahweh alone.

typically the older the writing the more likely there is a distinction between El and Yahweh beyond generic name 'god' vs 'God'. so it seems like the hebrew versions of the Torah have undergone their own theological editing.

Actually that’s translation bias.
The name YHWH appears throughout the books of the old testament. But the English translations substitute “Lord” in it’s place.

Loading…

www.biblica.com

 

[Orangeslice13]

Actually that’s translation bias.
The name YHWH appears throughout the books of the old testament. But the English translations substitute “LORD” in its place.the verse I quoted calls the name YHWH, the G-d of A, I And J. Its exodus which is among the earliest writings we have

Loading…

www.biblica.com

 

[just bob]

Holy ****, this thread is hilarious. How did I miss it for a whole two days. Imagine getting this pwned by Dobbs on your own religion.

FTR, Mormons (which I no longer am) believe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one....in purpose, and are three different beings. Growing up Mormon and getting made fun of for my weird beliefs, it was always funny thinking about Jesus praying to himself, etc.

Mormon chicks I went to high school with were extremely frisky. I certainly enjoyed the religion when I was younger, haven't met any since then. Kinda weird I guess.

 

[tbh]

This has to be a troll.

...perhaps Woody's Hotep nephew?

 

[Orangeslice13]

I have absolutely no clue when it comes to ancient Greek. I'm dependent on those who actually know what they're talking about.

Here's my layman's take: while the Jewish authors were writing in Greek, it doesn't mean that the Jewish authors universally shared the usage and contexts of all Greek words. For example: Americans and Brits both used the term "chip," but what we call "chips" they call "crisps" and what they call "chips" we call "fries." Hugh Mackintosh has a summary of it that is way better than I could possibly craft. From the Jewish perspective, God spoke the world into existence. Thus God's "word" is a pretty powerful concept. This context of "logos" makes far more sense than Philo's usage.

You’re so close…….
And I would agree that we should seek out those who know what they are talking about…which removes nearly all biblical commentary in favor of those who study the use of words at the time. I would argue that the gospel of John wasn’t written by a moron. I would argue that he said exactly what he meant to a people who would understand exactly what he was saying. Not people who would change the meaning for their own purposes 300+ years later. John wasn’t written to a mix of Jews and gentiles (Greeks) when he pics “logos” he’s absolutely appealing to the “word of G-d in a way that people would understand. He appeals to Deuteronomy and the law as the “word of G-d” or logos. Meaning everything is set up on G-Ds law and G-Ds word. Nothing is in existence without that law and/or word. In the common Greek the He and Him are added where “it” applies more often with its usage in contemporary writings. This is all important as the association and wording doesn’t preclude Messiah from being Devine but if John wanted to equate Messiah with the father as just another version of the father then there were ways to do that but it definitely isn’t to tell you that the word was a separate being. And it definitely would not contain the prefect to denote “a god” at the end of the sentence. Furthermore this is the same method Messiah later used to correct the Pharisees when they accused him of claiming to be equal to or for our purposes….part of a trinity….with G-d.

35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified),

Vs 35 used the same word choice as 1:1 except in 35 the translation correctly used “g” god for one and “G” for the other.

If they were being consistent in their translation the 1:1 would reflect 2 separate meanings as 35 does and would read “the word was with G-d and the word was a god.”

Or as others have rendered it
“The word was with G-d and the word was Devine”

 

[Orangeslice13]

1Cor 11:33.

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Separate beings.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Paul clearly taught separate beings and began all his letters the same way.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The New Testament which translates “the Lord Jesus Christ “ is once again a different word than the names of G-d rendered “Lord” or “LORD” in the Torah but instead the Greek word for “teacher” or “master “ where if you were teaching a trinity relationship you would have used the “Lord” associated with “Adoni”

 

[bamawriter]

You’re so close…….
And I would agree that we should seek out those who know what they are talking about…which removes nearly all biblical commentary in favor of those who study the use of words at the time. I would argue that the gospel of John wasn’t written by a moron. I would argue that he said exactly what he meant to a people who would understand exactly what he was saying. Not people who would change the meaning for their own purposes 300+ years later. John wasn’t written to a mix of Jews and gentiles (Greeks) when he pics “logos” he’s absolutely appealing to the “word of G-d in a way that people would understand. He appeals to Deuteronomy and the law as the “word of G-d” or logos. Meaning everything is set up on G-Ds law and G-Ds word. Nothing is in existence without that law and/or word. In the common Greek the He and Him are added where “it” applies more often with its usage in contemporary writings. This is all important as the association and wording doesn’t preclude Messiah from being Devine but if John wanted to equate Messiah with the father as just another version of the father then there were ways to do that but it definitely isn’t to tell you that the word was a separate being. And it definitely would not contain the prefect to denote “a god” at the end of the sentence. Furthermore this is the same method Messiah later used to correct the Pharisees when they accused him of claiming to be equal to or for our purposes….part of a trinity….with G-d.

35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified),

Vs 35 used the same word choice as 1:1 except in 35 the translation correctly used “g” god for one and “G” for the other.

If they were being consistent in their translation the 1:1 would reflect 2 separate meanings as 35 does and would read “the word was with G-d and the word was a god.”

Or as others have rendered it
“The word was with G-d and the word was Devine”

Again, my knowledge of Koine Greek is 0.00. I can find numerous sources that disagree with you, but I have no way of personally determining who is right or wrong.

However, if I understand you correctly, it seems that you're suggesting that the fact that the Gospel is written in Greek as suggesting that John's audience was steeped in Greek culture and philosophy. That's simply not the case. Further, we can deduce John's intent simply by reading the rest of his work. It's in John's gospel that we find the seven "I Am" statements. John 8 is filled with discussion of the Messianic nature: (24) "If you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins," (51) "Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death," and of course (58) "before Abraham was, I am!" And John gives us the salutation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God!"

In the end, trying to contextualize John's use of "logos" is not terribly fruitful. There's no doubt that the ultimate context is that Jesus is God.

 

[Orangeslice13]

So why would translators render
“Adoni YHWH” as “the Lord our G-d”
And “YHWH” as “LORD” in Torah (old testament)
And
“Rabbi Jesus Christ”/ “Master Jesus Christ “ as “the Lord Jesus Christ “

Unless they were trying to draw a conclusion that wasn’t there ?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Again, my knowledge of Koine Greek is 0.00. I can find numerous sources that disagree with you, but I have no way of personally determining who is right or wrong.

However, if I understand you correctly, it seems that you're suggesting that the fact that the Gospel is written in Greek as suggesting that John's audience was steeped in Greek culture and philosophy. That's simply not the case. Further, we can deduce John's intent simply by reading the rest of his work. It's in John's gospel that we find the seven "I Am" statements. John 8 is filled with discussion of the Messianic nature: (24) "If you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins," (51) "Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death," and of course (58) "before Abraham was, I am!" And John gives us the salutation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God!"

In the end, trying to contextualize John's use of "logos" is not terribly fruitful. There's no doubt that the ultimate context is that Jesus is God.

The context is absolutely in doubt.
Considering he could have plainly said it and no commentary before 321 ce draws that conclusion.


Thomas actually called Jesus “g” “god”

John 20:28 - "my lord and my god" - The Narrow Path Ministries

theos.org

 

[bamawriter]

1Cor 11:33.

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Separate beings.

You mean 11:3. But you're conflating separate persons with separate beings. Your argument doesn't hold up in the context of Paul's other writings:

Romans 9:5: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Philippians 2: 6-8: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross!
Titus 2:13: while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

 

[bamawriter]

The context is absolutely in doubt.
Considering he could have plainly said it and no commentary before 321 ce draws that conclusion.


Thomas actually called Jesus “g” “god”

John 20:28 - "my lord and my god" - The Narrow Path Ministries

theos.org

Sorry, but that's not terribly helpful. Who wrote this commentary? The guy who posted it? There's no link. The Revised English Version on which this message board post is commenting prints John 20:28 as "...My Lord and my God!"

 

[Orangeslice13]

You mean 11:3. But you're conflating separate persons with separate beings. Your argument doesn't hold up in the context of Paul's other writings:

Romans 9:5: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Philippians 2: 6-8: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross!
Titus 2:13: while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Uhhhhh not sure what translation you’re using but……
Rom 9:5 NASB
whose are the fathers, and from whom is the [b]Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed [c]forever. Amen.

Phil 2 6-8 not clams of being G-d himself just in his nature.
As he’s the only begotten of G-d I don’t disagree.


Separate beings once again.
Titus 2:13 NASB looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [j]our great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus,

Footnote J Titus 2:13 Or the great God and our Savior

 

[bamawriter]

Uhhhhh not sure what translation you’re using but……
Rom 9:5 NASB
whose are the fathers, and from whom is the [b]Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed [c]forever. Amen.

Phil 2 6-8 not clams of being G-d himself just in his nature.
As he’s the only begotten of G-d I don’t disagree.


Separate beings once again.
Titus 2:13 NASB looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [j]our great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus,

Footnote J Titus 2:13 Or the great God and our Savior

NIV.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Sorry, but that's not terribly helpful. Who wrote this commentary? The guy who posted it? There's no link. The Revised English Version on which this message board post is commenting prints John 20:28 as "...My Lord and my God!"

That’s part of the stack exchange where the PHDs get together and talk it out.
The context is definitely “g” in conjunction with John recording two other occasions when Jesus’ antagonists accused him of making himself out to be God, and both times he then denied it (John 5.18-47; 10.30-37).

He actually explained that he was begotten of the father and how it works in John 5